Bob Dole claims no Republicans on debate commission support Trump

Actually, I said “I think...”, as in “I’m not sure, but it seems like...” Let’s keep all the quotes in context. Thanks!

 

The only way you can decrease bias is diversity of ideologies. For instance if you have half republicans that are never Trumpers or people opposed to Trump and half Democrats....that isn't a level playing field. I think that was the point brought by Dole.

If the commission is promoted as unbias because there are equal parties in representation, but in actuality a huge proportion dont want Trump to win....that info should be out to public and candidates.

 

I agree there needs to be transparency. I’m not sure I’d be as strict with that as you want to be. I still highly value my privacy (I know that outs my age).

 

You literally just did the opposite of what you asked me to do, as if I had not already been keeping your quotes in context. "I think he's saying this in support of Trump," is your ENTIRE post (#3). How is that out of context? Because I left out, "I think?" Most people do not translate,"I think," as, "I'm not sure...but it seems like," (regardless of your highly individualized understanding of those words).

Conversely, you just put the words, "I'm not sure, but it seems like..." in quotes, though you DID NOT say those words at all, regardless of context. It seems like a real double standard you're using.

 

Yeah, well. You are wrong.

 

About what? My English lesson?

Highest degree of certainty: I am sure/certain/positive; I know.

High degree of certainty: I think/believe.

Indicating uncertainty: I'm not sure, I'm guessing.

 

And I don’t think Dole talked to all of them. I Know for a fact the ND President is a trump supporter.

 

It does seem to me when the League ran them, we had clean debates. Of course that might be because of the participants.

 

So it's impossible to be in a large auditorium separated by plexiglass (like the VP debate) and be safe?

That's just an excuse to bail out of a live debate.

 

I think so.

 

It’s not an issue to me either way.

 

I guess it all depends on what they requirements are needed to be seated on that commission.

 

Going back to one of your original points, did you watch Rogan's video reacting to Trump saying he'd debate Biden on his show? His guest asks, "So, well... when Trump and Biden get here, you're gonna do the DMT question, right?" and Rogan is like, "I'm gonna get 'em high first! Both of 'em are gonna get high. We're gonna be doing mushrooms, I'm gonna bring in a shaman!"

It does sound a little like exactly what this country needs right now!

 

jesus, thought Bobby croaked years ago.

Good to see that he's still around...

 

Definitely. I watched the Nixon V Kennedy. And it's just such a shame that Nixon ended up being paranoid and doing criminal actions. America was blessed in that it elected Presidents one after the other who were qualified for the position.

I want to get back to that, the feeling that both candidates(or multiple candidates in the case of third party supporters like us) are qualified for the position and it becomes way less about personality and more about policy choices.

 

Ninety-seven years young, and still as gorgeous as a golden goose!

 

Hearsay.

 

So the Commission is in it for Democrats? I also cannot understand why the moderators HAVE to always be people in the media! ANYONE can asks questions. I'm not sure how being a journalist uniquely qualifies someone to be a debate moderator!

 

This old veteran speaks the courage of his convictions. It is obvious....there is never a debate monitor that is less than a donor for the left wing establishment. Many times they take an activist part. Why never a Shaun Hannity? Candice Owens? or many intelligent people with a Conservative bent? Easy answer.....the Commision is an Establishment tool for the left wing globalists and Bob Dole, in his ancient wisdom is calling it out!

 

Is that you or a chimpanzee speaking? If Trump tests multiple times that he is non-infectious......end of story, end of excuse. The Commision is in the tank for leftist globalists.

 

yawn....it does the Commission no good to cancel the debate unless it is for a good reason. Trump ran away

 

Exactly. The Nixon of 1960 wasn't the Nixon of 1968. Nixon 1960 was more aligned with IKE and not paranoid.

I'd like to see a change, instead of basing who participates on the polls, base it on the number of states they are on the ballot. Example.
1st debate would include all candidates who are on enough states to gain 270 electoral votes. That enough to win the presidency. In 2016 Stein, Johnson, both would have joined Trump and Clinton. No one else.

2nd debate, the threshold rises to 400 electoral votes. Johnson would have joined Trump and Clinton.

3rd debate, must be on all state ballots, 538 electoral votes. Again Johnson would have been part of it along with Trump and Clinton.

Give the people a view of those third party candidates that could actually win the presidency based on the number of state ballots they're on. Basing it on 270, you're still leaving all the little regional candidates, parties off the debate stage who haven't a chance to win since they're not on enough state ballots.

 

I was just surprised with the gentlemanly respect that both Nixon and Kennedy had for each other. You could tell that both men would support the other's Presidency and I bet there was even a mourning speech by Nixon on Kennedy's ill-fated assassination that I believe definitely changed the course of American Politics, as Kennedy was actually becoming more and more of a moderate in the middle of his first term and would have been a much better president than Lyndon B. Johnson.

Now, I was born in '92, I didn't get to see any of these men but if I did I would have despite the circumstances of the Iron Curtain and the Soviets been very comfortable and confident in a Nixon or Kennedy administration.

That said, Nixon did make one mistake(that has continued beyond his administration).The outreach of China. You can tell businesses have too much of a sway(as private investors and lobbyists) into American Government, because there is no way that the US Government formerly opposed to the Soviets would make an outreach with the Chinese. It doesn't make sense.

As much as I believe entrepreneurs and private market minded individuals have a much greater grasp of their own issues than the government who issues mandates and still hasn't made a long-term fixed budget(like any other business), I think that our participation from strictly a business perspective is also too flawed.

Businesses run on profit, but the best political decisions sometimes(most of the times) do not operate on profit(or a different tangible profit than wealth) but rather benefits.

It wasn't beneficial to transfer our wealth over to China even if it resulted in cheaper goods. I also argue that it wasn't beneficial to have started Iraq/Afghanistan, especially after noting that the Soviets were trapped in Afghanistan.

Making sound policy decisions requires a long-term view, that means no knee-jerk reactions to the situations. It's also why I think I'd make a good head of State. I avoid knee jerk reactions and always look at the elephant in the room, that might be uncomfortable but ignoring it is worse than confronting it.

 

So you seriously think that getting Trump and Biden high would actually be part of the debate?

 

I think history has shown that they are not.